getTaggedEntities

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context about plan restriction and error conditions, plus cursor behavior (invalid cursor returns first set), which goes beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two focused paragraphs. The first paragraph highlights the critical plan restriction, and the second explains the core functionality. No extraneous content, though it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's input and purpose. It covers the plan requirement, error conditions, and basic function. Missing explicit mention of return format or pagination, but schema covers cursor details, leaving only minor gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema covers all 5 parameters with 100% description coverage. The tool description does not add new parameter information beyond the schema's detailed descriptions, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Gets Postman elements (entities) by a given tag.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools as the only one retrieving entities by tag, with no ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly notes the Enterprise plan requirement and the 404 error on other plans, which is critical usage guidance. It lacks explicit comparison to alternatives, but since no sibling tool offers similar functionality, the guidance is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.